~ insanitybytes

Sin harms us…

Kind of an interesting juxtaposition, Violet, my atheist buddy, recently called me disgusting, my opinion, beliefs, etc, meaning my Christian beliefs, which compelled me to ask, by Whose standard? By what morality? Outside of an objective morality on which to base one’s opinions, you have nothing there on which to judge my alleged sinfulness, except your own subjective opinion.

In Violet’s opinion abortion is a moral thing, and near as I can tell, also moral, gay public relations should take precedent over the fact that the gay mayor of Seattle has now been accused of trolling young boys, pedophilia. Hence how my disagreement with her over her own subjective moral judgements rendered me “disgusting.” But what is it that allegedly makes her vast understanding of morality so far superior to mine? Nothing. It is based on nothing more than her own personal opinion, and somewhat limited understanding and experience of the world. Totally subjective, much like her opinion of me. Indoctrination really. Abortion-good. Homosexuality-good. Thou shall not contradict the established doctrine with any facts that may detract from the goodness of these things.

Ironically Tiribulus is also displeased with me, proving IB is just really good at building unity and consensus among diverse groups. The heart of Tiribulus’s post is that he objects to the idea that sin harms us and believes that no, sin is bad because it is offensive to God. Actually, the answer is both at the same time. He says, “To sum up. Does the LORD care about the deleterious effects of sin upon His people? Of course He does, but nothing has ever been, nor will anything ever be of greater priority and concern to Him than HIS GREAT AND HOLY NAME.”

That is theologically correct. That is not relationship correct however, human interactions correct, or logic correct, because while it makes perfect sense to me, I am often involved in discussions that amount to, it’s not harmful, therefore it’s not sin. I could run about bellowing at the top of my lungs, a sin is a sin because God says it is, but that does absolutely nothing to convince anyone who doesn’t already believe in God, that sin is actually harmful to us personally.

The debate I am often involved in amounts to, “God is a horrible dictator who makes arbitrary rules and doesn’t love us, therefore I don’t believe in God.”

I set out a number of years ago to prove they are not arbitrary rules at all. That every one of these “rules” serves a vital benefit to us personally. That they are for our own good and protection. I have not been wrong yet. All in grim humor here, but I’d like to pause and thank the US, the federal reserve, and the international monetary fund, for doing such an amazing job of displaying some of the potential hazards and pitfalls of the sin of usury. I’ve had to do almost no work proving the moral hazards of that one. They got it covered.

Sin harms us personally, even when we can’t see it, even when we don’t understand it, even when we aren’t aware of it. So sin is not just “arbitrary rules handed down by a dictator,” they are clearly designed to protect us, often from our own selves, our own lack of foresight. Do we not often think we know better than God? Do we often fail to see the consequences of our own actions? These so-called “arbitrary rules” are actually designed to prevent us from additional grief and suffering that sin causes.

The problem with subjective morality is that it is narrow in its focus, it relies on nothing more than the wisdom, bias, and personal experiences of a select group of people. The reason, feelings, and rationalizing of a tiny group of people is as inadequate and flawed an objective morality marker as empathy is. I am well aware of this. I am also well aware that the world we are living in has gone and made sin somewhat subjective, even many Christians, so we now believe we can judge right and wrong based on how much harm we perceive it as doing or not doing. Once we open that door we can now rationalize anything. Gossip…usury….homosexuality…abortion…pedophilia…selling baby body parts…

So, this all proves not only that God is good, that God loves us, and His rules are designed to protect us, it speaks to the fact that He is highly intelligent and has designed a system in which for humans to flourish and thrive. HIS GREAT AND HOLY NAME is elevated, praised, lifted on high, when we start reflecting Him and living as He has called us to live.

This twisted view of what comprises, or doesn’t comprise, sin is the direct result of the removal of the tenets of Christianity from public schools, public forum and public entertainment. What are young, impressionable women, and girls, left with in order to offset their need to fill the intrinsic spiritual void left behind? Secularism? Materialism? Pantheism? All of which debase the vital importance of humanity’s relationship with its Creator, and His most precious gifts of human dignity, human life and human spirituality. Until strong, committed, devoted Christian men begin to take charge of the public arena once again, and provide the leadership necessary to educate youngsters in the TRUTH, we will continue to be subjected to the shamelessly public, and unabashedly foolish, “personal” opinions expressed by your seriously misguided atheist acquaintance and her non-Christian ilk.

You bring up a really good point, many of our young people now have absolutely no moral base because we’ve taken faith,values, out of school, out of the culture,etc,and many people are outside of the church. too. They genuinely don’t know why some things are sin, harmful, they’ve been told the precise opposite all their lives.To make it worse, they’re young people so they already tend to think they’re invincible and they don’t realize there are actual consequences in what they do.

Exactly. It makes me sad to think of all the JOY they are being systematically denied through non-Christian, anti-Christian indoctrination, while millions of Christian men fail to speak up in opposition to the LIES.

Violet tries hard to be nice but her blog is a toxic environment. It isn’t intentional on her part, but since 1) her brand of atheism relies on caricature, and 2) caricature isn’t a form of argument as much as a form of insult, Therefore she is always going to expect the worst of you and can never take you seriously.
Of course the fundies on her blog are all too willing to confirm the caricatures. The more you comment there the more you get sucked into the freak show, and eventually you become just another of the specimens in her menagerie.

Interesting assessment. I expected the best of Insanity until that comment suggesting all homosexuals are pedophiles. It’s simply not acceptable in this world of facts to not even attempt to back up such ridiculous statements.

To address this issue I have found it necessary to make a comparison to Misdemeanor Crimes calling for limited punishment and possibly forgiveness, and Capital Crimes calling for the death penalty as being unforgivable. To do that, I add the level of Willful Evil above the level of Sin. I believe some kinds of basic simple Sin can be forgiven. When it comes to laws, as well as morals, what is legal and moral in one state may be illegal and immoral in another state – or city, or country. That which is uncertain and involves opinion without harm to others should not justify the ultimate penalty. I consider Willful Evil to include the deliberate unrepairable harming of people without just cause. For example murder is a Capital Crime. It is Willful Evil, What about taking a life in self defense during a crime, or in justified military action, or executing people found guilty of murder? Hypocrisy or justified? Some grey areas. Perhaps each to their own way of life for perceived Sin that does not harm self or others.

Matthew 6:14-15 NIV. For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Matthew 18: 21-22 NIV. Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times? “Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

Luke 6:37 NIV. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Luke 17:3-4 NIV. So watch yourselves. “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says , ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

John 8:7 NIV. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

I do not believe there is a “hell” involving “endless punishment” by “burning in fire” for sinners, because I believe God is merciful. For those found guilty of Willful Evil, what God considers to be like a Capital Crime, and those who are unwilling to repent and ask for forgiveness, IO believe there is the “Lake of Fire” where condemned souls and spirits are instantly, painlessly, and permanently obliterated – they cease to exist.

As a Christian Spiritual Universalist, I believe our human souls are born in heaven, live out a physical life here on earth, and then return to the spiritual heaven, with the physical universe being comparable to virtual reality but for spiritual beings in heaven.

Who do I detest? Those who claim disability and illness are proof or signs that those afflicted people are “sinful” and “not right with God.” I do not agree with that, although some kinds of sin can be harmful to physical health – leading to illness and possibly disability. Even so, people can be sin-free and be right with God and still become ill and still suffer from disabilities.

Some activities engaged in by humans can be harmful to self and/or others, but might not be Sin or Willful Evil. Hypocrisy or reasonable exceptions? Such as drinking alcoholic beverages, smoking cigarettes, using illegal drugs, engaging in unprotected sexual activities. What about eating food that makes you overweight and in turn harms your health? What about those who sell such food, as well as those who sell alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, and illegal drugs? Do you have the right to harm yourself? Or others by providing the means to do so? Some Libertarians believe they should have the legal right to do whatever they want to their own bodies and minds, such as recreational use of mind-altering drugs. I don’t agree. If there are consequences, then people must be responsible for their own actions, their own decisions, and the results.

1 Corinthians 6:19 NIV. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.

Jim, I’m concerned about parts of your comments. I’m not confident on how much is true disagreement versus differences in communication style and focus. But I invite you to consider the following.

God labels only one sin as unforgivable, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as mentioned in Matthew 12: 31-32 & Luke 12:10. Better understanding comes from greater Biblical context such as Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. Around verse 51, if I remember right he calls them stiff-necked and describes the continual hardening of the heart of people who resist the teaching and urging of the Holy Spirit, people who do not want to repent or choose healing. More and similar context can be added by looking to the first 2 or 3 verses of 1 Timothy 4 as well as maybe from Titus 1:15 (a comment in the midst of qualifications for serving as an elder (aka pastor but not in the sense that so many use the word today when people really just mean preacher but put too much on their preachers, it’s an actual office described by God with a heavy responsibility.)

The sins that you or I consider the most heinous in harming others whether, for me intentionally torture for its own sake or the intentional taking a defenseless and innocent life without cause whether by a thousand knife cuts from a psychopath who all would call a serial killer or the very common psychopathy of ripping a child from his mother’s womb, or consider all those involved in murdering Christ our Savior in such a torturous way… all those sins can be and at times have been forgiven. God can and does forgive sins, no matter how terrifyingly horrible and hateful they sound to us. But after careful and prayerful study we may conclude that only those who harden their hearts completely and permanently blaspheme the Holy Spirit and only those at that level of hardness of heart never repent and therefore are never forgiven.

Well said. Good points. And thanks for reminding me of one particular point about repenting. I don’t disagree with you. It’s that I go further, if that is the right way to describe it. You might not agree with with the results of my further, and if so then that’s okay.

Still I have my OPINION – my own beliefs. I don’t say biblical canon is wrong. I simply go beyond biblical canon established by the Council of Trent (1545-1563). There are other perspectives to consider, and not all of my perspective is based on those others – such as the writings of Thomas. Also, those of Andrew – what few survived the occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria: Julius Caesar’s fire during his civil war in 48 BC; the attack of Aurelian in AD 270–275; the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus of Alexandria in AD 391; and the Muslim conquest of Egypt in (or after) AD 642.*

Of course, God has the ultimate power and with it can forgive whatever and whoever He wants to forgive, even if humans can’t forgive someone for certain actions and demand that someone because of their actions burn in hell for all of eternity.

God forgives an individual for a certain action or actions. The forgiven one refuses to accept forgiveness because of believing nothing wrong was done – disagreeing with God – still believing the judged action or actions were justified. Therefore, refusing to repent.

Upon refusing to accept forgiveness, refusing to accept guilt and in turn refusing to repent, the judged individual will continue to be a threat. Therefore, must be terminated. I reject the belief of endless punishment by burning in hell, because I believe God is merciful – even to those who reject forgiveness and refuse to repent. Even so, such mercy is that instead of endless punishment there is an execution that is instant, painless, and permanent.

Such permanent spiritual death is a warning for other fallen ones to not likewise rebel – such as the followers of the Lucifer Rebellion. From that narrative, Satan was a separate follower and fallen one apart from Lucifer – leader of the rebellion, as was the so-called “devil” of the Christian faith another follower – the three of them forming an evil trinity to counter the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Lucifer and Satan were captured, judged, refused to repent, and then executed, ending the great war in heaven. However. the third member of the evil trinity is yet to be captured.

Just as physical wars cause physical damage in need of repair after the end of a physical war, spiritual wars cause spiritual damage in need of repair after the end of a spiritual war. Ongoing willful evil and sin on earth are kinds of spiritual damage that spread from the war in heaven to earth and its people, where the third member of the evil trinity is reported to have gone into hiding with hope of continuing the rebellion. That’s one of the reasons why there is still such suffering on earth today. We have the knowledge of good and evil. Some people still choose evil. God allows that freedom of choice.

My OPINION is my belief there is a level of crime worse than Sin, and I refer to it as Willful Evil. Further, that the consequences of engaging in Willful Evil are greater than the consequences of engaging in Sin. Willful Evil, I forgot to mention, includes refusal of accepting guilt, refusal of forgiveness, refusal to repent. Willful Evil calls for the death penalty, and Sin calls for limited punishment. Perhaps from your perceptive, based on biblical canon, only blaspheme of the Holy Spirit would qualify as Willful Evil.

The Council of Trent took blaspheme much further than just against the Holy Spirit to be anyone saying or writing anything in disagreement with their conclusions as being against God and against The Church. Their way of dealing with the Protestant Reformation. Since then, the original church has continued to fragment into many different denominations – members of one disagree and leave to go form their own – continues to this day – each believing they are the only people right with God and some believe only members of their denomination can be saved – can go to heaven – that members of all others will burn in hell for all eternity.

———-
*
Destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the Muslim conquest of Egypt in (or after) AD 642. Then…

We fought an earlier version of ISIS over 500 years ago. And it is my opinion ISIS is engaging in Willful Evil. So that is a good example of the spiritual damage of the great war in heaven – the spiritual damage that continues on earth today as Sin and as Willful Evil.

The Ottoman Caliphate, under the Ottoman dynasty of the Ottoman Empire, was the last Sunni Islamic caliphate of the late medieval and the early modern era. During the period of Ottoman growth, Ottoman rulers claimed caliphal authority since Murad I’s conquest of Edirne in 1362. Later Selim I, through conquering and unification of Muslim lands, became the defender of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina which further strengthened the Ottoman claim to caliphate in the Muslim world. [Ottoman Empire, 1362–1875.]

The real “Dracula” was a Christian and a hero who fought those Muslims. Vlad III, known as Vlad the Impaler or Vlad Dracula, was voivode of Wallachia three times between 1448 and his death. He was the second son of Vlad Dracul, who became the ruler of Wallachia in 1436.

Vlad found a way to terrify the Muslim terrorists by doing something to them more brutal than anything they ever did. Death by impaling. Of course, the other side from their perspective – those Muslims – would consider Vlad to be the one engaging in Willful Evil.

Today, it might be necessary to become more brutal than the terrorists to be able to defeat them. Perhaps we have a leader now who is willing to do what is necessary in order for our side to win.

Lies. Anyone can feel free to pop over to last few posts on my sites where you allege that all homosexual men are a threat to children, then refuse to read the evidence from decades of research proving you wrong. With no reference to your religion, I said your behaviour in spreading vicious myths and refusing to give any evidence, or read and comment the facts to the contrary, is disgusting. Lies harm us, viscous myths harms us and refusing to evaluate facts harm us. As I said, I expected better from you, you’re neither stupid nor lacking in experience.

Can a girl of 6 be HONESTLY taught about the importance of fathers…..by her having two mothers?

Key word here: honestly.

Again. Can a boy of seven be HONESTLY taught the importance of mothers through example, encouragement, and common sense, by him having two fathers? Be brutally honest to yourself.

If then, being so honest, it would appear that your understanding of the ‘danger’ or ‘threat’ of same sex parents (men or women) is not understood as to the lasting effects or potential problems toward the little ones who are not taught up from down, left or right, right or wrong.

This is more broad to your point, but it is spot on. ‘Sin harms us,’ directly or indirectly.

ColorStorm you are offending lots of kids who have lost their parents and are brought up in a variety of combinations of parental figures. The more loving adult role-models a child has the better, but that’s not to say a single parent can’t do a great job. Besides, that wasn’t the concern Insanity stated in her comments – she directly accused homosexual men of being a threat to children, when a simple analysis of the facts (done by many pieces of research) show that men who are attracted to children (pedophiles) generally aren’t attracted to any other adults, or are attracted to a mix of female and male in general distribution patterns. Falsely accusing the wrong characteristic will never help us eradicate the problem from society.

It’s easy to make assumptions like that if you’ve never seen a same sex couple raise children. Fortunately for us, people conduct numerous in-depth studies on these issues and ALL have concluded that there are no inherent disadvantages for children in this family structure compared to heterosexual parents. So you can lift that invented weight of concern off your shoulders and breathe a sigh of relief! 🙂

Today we have some of those children who grew up in those homes and while they may still love their parents,they grieve what was lost, they testify to the absence and lack they felt because they were taken from one of their biological parents. Someone was missing from their lives and it caused them harm.

Whether we like it or not, children raised in gay homes are missing a biological a parent. In any other situation, death, divorce, adoption, those children often experience a loss when their parents is absent. To deny that truth in the case of gay marriage or worse, to tell those kids that haven’t got the right to feel that way, is cruel. They are their own people, not mandatory servants to a gay agenda.

You know IB..I could offer anecdotal evidence of how life without a Father wounds a young man, as I and so many I grew up with know those wounds personally and for life. But, we all know that in the minds of the atheist and men haters, anecdotes don’t mean anything. Unless they are the anecdotes of the deconverted, then they are proof.

@ColorStorm. Yep, takes a man to teach a boy to BE a man. Takes a woman to teach a girl how to BE a woman.

I have pointed out on several occasions that homosexuality is tightly entwined with child sexual abuse. Children are often groomed into a homosexual lifestyle. I mean that, I’ve heard and I’ve seen it enough, to know it is a part of the story. Right on schedule, Milo, the outspoken gay guy, said precisely that same thing and was roasted for it. Just a few days ago the Seattle mayor was accused of having trolled for young boys. We have tangible evidence that child sexual abuse and homosexuality walk very closely to one another.

I’m trying to tell the truth, truth that has observable evidence behind it and you are accusing me of spreading lies and harmful myths. But these things are not myths at all, they are testimonies right from the mouths of those who have experienced it.

“How do you feel about all the gay men who troll 12yr boys, pack them full of meth, and have sex with them, Pink? Do you ever stop thinking of yourself long enough to think of them? Or do even the kids get to serve the gay agenda?”

“Gay men have been trolling for kids since the dawn of time. ”

“He’s a homosexual and being a homosexual in a land that thinks as you do, means gay men in power go right on raping kids often for decades, and they will never be held accountable for it,never labeled a criminal because after all gay men aren’t criminals and protecting the positive public image of homosexual men as a group trumps all empathy for the children many of them destroy.”

These are just some of your actual accusations on the post, backed up by no evidence, refusing to read any studies into child sexual abuse to find out what the real issues are. You ‘know’ better because you’ve decided that ‘pedophile’ is another word for ‘gay’ and you can’t separate the two in your prejudiced head.

“You ‘know’ better because you’ve decided that ‘pedophile’ is another word for ‘gay’ and you can’t separate the two in your prejudiced head.”

Nope. I provided a link to a newspaper article about the Seattle mayor. He is gay. He is currently being accused of having trolled young boys. Therefore, we seem to have a gay man who is also a pedophile. That is the truth. He is also not the first or the only one.

Many gay men who have never trolled children as far as we know,also report having been groomed into a lifestyle themselves as children. Therefore, there is a relationship and connection between homosexuality and sexual abuse. You may call me prejudiced if you like and you can even cite studies that claim this isn’t true, but the fact remains that we have tangible, observable evidence that demonstrates it is indeed true in several cases.

Okay, so a link with one gay man who trolled for boys. So if I find a link with one evangelical minister who has done this can we conclude the ‘evangelical minister agenda’ has been about child abuse since the dawn of time? We all know a few stories so it must be true, eh? Read the links to studies and find out the difference. Most child abusers only target children sexually – they are not homosexuals. Smaller numbers are heterosexual and some are homosexual. Read about it, you might be interested.

I remember attending church during part of my childhood, where my father was church treasurer, owner of a small oil company, president of the Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association – and most of the church members were one way or another associated with oil businesses. I’d overhear adults before church services talking about events in their businesses, jobs, and personal life during the past week. Some of them using crude language about crude oil. It was of course okay for them to talk that way, but not me without risking my rear end glowing in the dark for a while. They did not practice what they preached. Hypocrites. Sin-free on Sundays, dressed in 3-piece suits with ties and polished shoes appearing to be sin-free, but engaging in most kinds of sin the other six days and nights of the week. Even going so far as to brag about some sins while standing there on church property! What some considered to be sin others did not.

When my grandparents would visit, it was sin-free Sunday seven days-a-week. My parents would hide all evidence of drinking alcoholic beverages and smoking tobacco. As if it is okay as long as you don’t get caught. Greater fear of judgment by other people than by God. Maybe by attending church for an hour or two each Sunday they believed God would forgive the sins of the other six days and nights. “Fire insurance” I heard it described many times.

Greed dominated everything – money first, then God. The church itself was like that. The Sunday school teacher telling me only children who attend our church will go to heaven and all other children will go to hell – so tell my friends to attend our church – so the church can get more money from their parents. Rule by fear. If you don’t give our church money then you will go to hell. I was not hoodwinked by her. I knew giving money to any church will not save your soul. God has no need of your money – I believe God just wants you to spend it wisely. If helping the church with money is to help others, such as charity, then that is a good use of money.

Witnessing all of that did not make me a saint. Instead, I took the position that if I am wrong then I will take responsibility for my own actions, assuming consequences rather than assuming forgiveness. Meaning, freedom of choice – I don’t have to accept what others claim to be wrong because they could be wrong. Results might determine if I am right or wrong or just too far to the left. What it really comes down to is what I refer to as God-given common sense.

“As if it is okay as long as you don’t get caught. Greater fear of judgment by other people than by God. Maybe by attending church for an hour or two each Sunday they believed God would forgive the sins of the other six days and nights. “Fire insurance” I heard it described many times.”

I so hear you! I think you really summed up the heart of the problem here, “greater fear of judgment by other people than by God.” When that happens there is something all wrong with our system,with our hypocrisy,and the harm we can do with those attitudes can last for generations.

Especially with kids! Kids are sharp, I think they actually play, “spot the hypocrite.” With kids our words are almost meaningless, they’re looking at our behavior.

A couple of specific issues brought up in your excellent posting and regarding an apparent opposing perspective. Abortion and Homosexuality. In this comment I’ll address Abortion, then Homosexuality in the follow-up. Sorry for length. Hope it is helpful. Time of readers appreciated.

The issue of Abortion. Born in Wichita Kansas in 1956, I was in later years exposed to the conflicts with a local abortion doctor reported in the news – the violence rather than peaceful protests of some who opposed him and others.

Years later, I served a year as a “soldier” in The Salvation Army, mainly doing disaster relief work. I accepted the position of The Salvation Army – its church – that abortion is acceptable for incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.

A person’s position on a particular issue might be based on what that person knows at the time. Then, as that person becomes better informed about the issue, the person may form a different opinion – even reversing position of for or against. Today, that is further influenced by mainstream news media “slanting journalism” in order to influence your position by leaving out information that could alter your opinion.

Years later, in the news, the added dimension of the issue of “When Life Begins” to help determine when and if abortion is acceptable. It set my thinking on a different “If-Then” course as a spiritual trek. The legal perspective could only address physical life from a kind of medical science position, not from a spiritual point of view. It is my opinion all physical life begins with physical conception. A cell is alive, is it not? When do cells become human, as if human life is more important than any other? When a human shape is recognized, or when the heart starts beating, or when brain waves can be detected, or upon physical birth? Bah! The humbugs are humming.

When does your car become a car? When conceived? While being manufactured? Upon completion? Upon entry of a driver? Your physical body is like a car. The driver is your spiritual soul. We need a vehicle for transportation while visiting this planet. If you travel by jet to another city, then you might need to rent a car there for local transportation. What an inconvenience it would be if you discover upon arrival that your reserved car has been destroyed. Rent another if/when available? Perhaps. My point is to add the dimension of looking at the abortion issue from the perspective of the soul.

I believe true Life is spiritual Life not physical Life. Therefore, the spiritual soul is more important than the physical body in use. Humans use virtual reality to create avatars, which can be killed while the human lives on unharmed. Likewise, spiritual beings in heaven can make use of physical bodies, which can be killed on earth while the souls live on unharmed in heaven. Of course, it is a crime on earth to destroy another person’s car without just cause – such as self defense or military action. It’s a kind of murder. Even so, a body is terminated, not the driving soul. Maybe the car does not yet have a soul when it is destroyed. Maybe it matters when the soul takes possession of the body – conception, first heart beat, or physical birth. Whichever, the soul itself was born, or otherwise created in heaven by God, before entering a physical life on earth. And to that spiritual real the soul returns when physical life ends – no matter the cause.

Maybe knowledge is not limited to the brain from human experience gain. What if the soul arrives with needed knowledge, which eventually become accessible as the person is educated, God sending that soul on a mission to earth to deliver knowledge of need. Thomas Edison. Benjamin Franklin. Leonardo Da Vinci. Galileo. What important knowledge did Jesus bring to earth? An incomplete mission. A promise to return. Not yet. Why not? Is it possible that so many abortions have delayed the promised return? Perhaps. We see physical consequences of our actions. We might not see spiritual consequences with loss of important knowledge. Without abortion, how different might the history and progress of our world be today? Does each abortion create an alternate or delayed history? For better or worse? Would one travel back in time to cause Hitler’s mother to abort him, or even killing her to prevent his birth? How much evil came with him in his soul, and how much evil developed from his early life experiences to cause him to engage in such massive murders? Take one life to save the life of one or many? Or take the risk? How would one know in advance? More subjects for debate.

Now about the issue of Homosexuality. I’m a fan and writer of science fiction. Robert A. Heinlein, my favorite author of all time, addressed many issues in his novels. In “Starship Troopers” he addressed the issue of women in the military and even taking showers with men in the same locker room. The novel revealed much more than the movie and sequels did. The main character lived the length of a normal human lifetime, but because of the time difference caused by faster-than-light travel, more time passing on earth than on the starship, and some time in hibernation, his life spanned over a thousand years, fighting in more than one war, experiencing the history, and becoming rich from pay collecting interest in the bank during all that time. Upon coming out of hibernation one time he discovered that homosexuality had become the norm, the majority – in the military – perhaps back on earth too, putting him into a minority. Next awaking brought human life back to heterosexuals being the majority.

My liberal side is anchored in science fiction while my conservative side is anchored in down-to-earth science. The TV series “Babylon 5” presented many different alien perspectives, different ways of life. Would we humans care more or less if a human-like but alien life form from another planet were homosexual or without any gender at all? From their perspective, they might find our ways of life to be quite alien! In the real nonfiction world in which most of us live, it is not necessary to travel to other planets to encounter ways of life so different that they could be referred to as being alien. We have found the aliens and they are us.

Basically, I believe in “each to their own way of life” unless such way is a threat. That is the key to it all: Is the alien way of life a direct threat to my life and my way of life? For example, ISIS cuts off the heads of infidels and anyone who does not agree with and abide by their way of life. So, yes, I’d consider that to be an alien threat, which must be stopped. Two men getting married or two women getting married – is that going to result in my death or interfere with my way of life? No. Is it being forced on me – to force me to marry a man instead of a woman? No. I’m still free to live the way I want to. Or would like to. Having sex with Andorian or Romulan women might be kinda fun. I’d not want a law passed to prevent it. Like past disapproval of mixed-race marriages and mixed-race sex between singles.

My first job included running night service calls at bars and clubs to repair juke boxes. Some of the locations were gay bars or gay nightclubs. I was the only employee willing to take such service calls, not being afraid of the gays. Some of my coworkers let their imaginations get the best of them. Common sense – I knew they would not dare do anything to harm me, out of their own fear of losing their only source of help – outside service for the juke box. I didn’t act afraid or offended. I conversed with them as easily as anyone else. It was business, not personal, but I was casual easy-going about it, which helped to put them at ease. Mutual acceptance. Diplomatic.

If their sexual activities are sin, then that is between them and God, not for me to decide. Further, hard as it might be for some heterosexuals to accept, homosexuality is not just about sex. It can include genuine love. One only need look to Greek and Roman history to see the truth in that, and what was once an accepted way of life – such as including that between an apprentice and a teacher. Happens in our time, but of course it is illegal, especially if the student is not yet an adult. Will children brought up by same sex parents be brainwashed or programmed to believe that is the best way of life, or will such children be given an education to present all ways of life – from which to chose upon legally becoming an adult? I don’t know. I hope so. The better informed a person is, the better the decision made.

I never married. Never met my soulmate. She is out there, somewhere – perhaps not on this world at this time, all humor aside. I’ve preferred single life. No regrets. Had enough sex with women during the ten years from age 20 to age 30 to last ten lifetimes. Now age 61. Loved a few. Lived with a few. All such relationships ended well, fading away, peacefully going our separate ways. I would not have objected to marriage to the right women. However, I did not want to be the biological father of any children, due to genetic history of illnesses such as asthma on the paternal side. I did not want to pass my defects on to another generation. I did not want another generation to suffer as I have. Adopt a kid? Perhaps? But that would depend on enough income – wife plus mine – to properly bring up a child in today’s world. My profession gave me enough income to support only myself, not a wife and certainly not children. Too many children are brought up in poverty. So no traditional family for me. This is not to say traditional marriage and raising children is wrong for others – just that it has not be my choice. We must maintain freedom of choice – within reason. Bizarre as it is, some people want to get married to their pets. I’d say that is going too far, but what if it is an accepted way of life on a distant alien world? Cross species marriage? My wife is a . . . dog, or a canine from Canis Major? I’d have to rule out cats to – not Catwoman – just cats – the claws could be a problem.

Oh, how could I forget? Humans getting married to and/or having sex with their robots. Ann Droid. Science fiction aside, and humor aside, I give it ten years to become reality. A whole new dimension for religion and deciding on what sin is. Marriage and sex between life and artificial life. Google will probably offer them by 2027. Consider the 1999 movie “Bicentennial Man” – starred Robin Williams. Based on the novel “The Positronic Man,” co-written by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, which is itself based on Asimov’s original novella titled “The Bicentennial Man,” – the plot explores issues of humanity, slavery, prejudice, maturity, intellectual freedom, conformity, sex, love, and mortality. Artificial children too! Consider the “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” 2001 movie. Can robots become conscious? Have souls? Make moral decisions? Believe in God? More subjects for debate. A human mind and soul transplanted into an artificial body to live longer? Then a robot wants to become a human, such as the “Data” character in Star Trek the Next Generation. How far will we be beyond the Outer Limits deep into The Twilight Zone in a few more generations? Will we remember God, Creator of Souls? Will God remember us?

I challenge to you establish anything you said here from scripture Gabrielle. That means I expect to see scripture next. Not another man centered emotionally driven diatribe.
————————————————————–“That is theologically correct. That is not relationship correct however, human interactions correct, or logic correct,…”

Di you just say that something can be theologically correct, that is correct according to God in His word, but incorrect for “relationships, human interactions and logic?”

“Not one single citation of scripture.I challenge to you establish anything you said here from scripture Gabrielle.”

Well, to prove that sin is harmful to us we could cite several dozen passages in the bible. The wages of sin are death, no? Well, call me crazy, but it seems as if “death” falls under the category of “harmful.” There are many more:

Isaiah 57:20-21, “But the wicked are like the tossing sea, For it cannot be quiet, And its waters toss up refuse and mud. “There is no peace,” says my God, “for the wicked.”

Job 15:20, “The wicked man writhes in pain all his days…”

Psalm 38, “My wounds grow foul and fester Because of my folly…”

“Did you just say that something can be theologically correct, that is correct according to God in His word, but incorrect for “relationships, human interactions and logic?”

I did say that. I believe the bible said that, too. We could cite your very favorite, 1 Corinthians 13, “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing……”

So yes, it is absolutely possible to have all the right theology, all the right faith, and without love, it all amounts to nothing. That’s what the bible says, not me.

(HAD to fix those typos. Sorry)
Pure subjective postmodernism. Not one single citation of scripture.

I challenge you to establish anything you said here from scripture Gabrielle. That means I expect to see scripture next. Not another man centered emotionally driven diatribe.
————————————————————–“That is theologically correct. That is not relationship correct however, human interactions correct, or logic correct,…”

Did you just say that something can be theologically correct, that is correct according to God in His word, but incorrect for “relationships, human interactions and logic?”

And Gabrielle, I’m, not displeased with YOU. That’s not the point and who cares who I might be displeased with displeased with anyway?

I want you to have and live in and give others God’s truth.

For the sake of HIS GREAT AND HOLY NAME FIRST.

Then for your sake and those you want to help.

Pagans are SUPPOSED to think that God is a horrible dictator. He doesn’t need you to get Him outta jams He’s not in. Your job is to learn that bible and live and preach it faithfully. The rest is up to Him.

How ya gonna do that when you can’t even discern that William Paul Young is an utter heretic?

wow IB, you do get yourself into all sorts of hot water with these folks who seem to be totally confused and truthfully, a bit lost….

I would think that every Christian knows that sin equates to sickness… and sickness, well, makes us sick.
It affects us, impacts us…. mind, body and soul…as in, it’s a bad thing for the physical as well as the psyche….
And as Christians, homosexuality, if we take God at His word, is, well a sin…
again something that makes us sick—of mind, body and soul.
I find it a bit unfair of your adversary to switch the topic with CS by turning his question to something entirely different then what he asked….

Sure… for kids who, for whatever reason, have but one parent, it does often take a village—teachers, friends, other relatives, all who give a hand in the raising….but for a child who has two moms or two dads….that is not “normal”
and because society likes to now claim that the abnormal is now normal….those who are deluded by the cloudiness of what is right or wrong…well, I think we best take their temperature as I fear that they are sick……

You said: “The problem with subjective morality is that it is narrow in its focus, it relies on nothing more than the wisdom, bias, and personal experiences of a select group of people. ”

Amen. This is why we’re not to judge. We don’t know everything God knows about the situation. Although, we can have discernment about whether something’s potentially harmful or not. This limited knowledge is why trusting that God knows what’s best for us is wisdom. We are acknowledging that we don’t know everything. And this provides a “GPS” of sorts to guide our lives.

And I agree that sin mainly harms us. God is not changed by our sin (Mal.3:6; James 1:17). He is not some thin-skinned deity nor does He need anything from us. Because He loves us, He chooses to let us participate in the divine nature with Him (2 Pet.1:4), having escaped the corruption of the “world system” in alienation from Him.

All the Law can be summed up in love (love God, love others). And love does no harm to another. We don’t steal or covet because it doesn’t show other-centered, self-giving love.To know God is to know love (1 John 4:7-21). To not sin is to not harm yourself or others. This brings glory to God because love manifests His nature.

“Well, to prove that sin is harmful to us we could cite several dozen passages in the bible”

I myself said, as you YOURself in fact quoted me as saying:

” “To sum up. Does the LORD care about the deleterious effects of sin upon His people? Of course He does, but nothing has ever been, nor will anything ever be of greater priority and concern to Him than HIS GREAT AND HOLY NAME.”

I explicitly declared that sin is of course harmful and that God cares that it is. Why would I ask you to establish from scripture what you have yourself here quoted me as already believing?

=============================================

You quote me as saying: ““Did you just say that something can be theologically correct, that is correct according to God in His word, but incorrect for “relationships, human interactions and logic?””

…and then respond with the following:

“So yes, it is absolutely possible to have all the right theology, all the right faith, and without love, it all amounts to nothing. That’s what the bible says, not me.”

In the statement I QUOTED you used the words “NOT… …CORRECT.” to describe correct theology as relates to “relationships, human interactions and logic.”.

Meaning that biblically correct theology can be INcorrect in those applications. That’s what you said. NOW you switch up on me and say that you meant it’s not that good theology can be INCORRECT, but that it is in itself not sufficient without love. A position I have again myself plainly declared TOO YOU personally on my own Facebook page. Yes, I did. If you deny it, I’ll go find it.

So, I will now accept that your new statement is what you actually meant in the first place and agree with you. 🙂

Ya know why it’s so easy to do that? Because you are afflicted with the sliding imprecision of postmodern deconstructed thought and communication. It makes perfect sense that you’d have a tough time precisely communicating imprecise thought. (and you definitely are not alone) I hasten yet again to clarify that this has literally nothing to do with a lack cerebral prowess on your part whatsoever. I’m serious. Many a towering intellect has been reduced to biblically laughable inconsistency under the spell of postmodernism.
====================================================================
What I need you to establish from scripture is that God’s primary reason for His hatred of sin is that it makes people feel bad instead of it’s being an affront to His holiness. For instance.

“I set out a number of years ago to prove they are not arbitrary rules at all. “

Show us please from scripture where Jesus or the apostles did this. Where did they try to satisfy the sinner that God’s law was worthy of their approval. For another instance.

Ya know what? Nevermind. Let me save us both some time. It cannot be done. No sense in going back and forth for another few days for no reason. Unless you REALLY want to try.

You quote me as saying: “I’d like to get back to “objectivity” with you though. Waddaya say?”

…and then respond with:

“Okay, so where’s your objective, biblical proof, citing scripture, that supports your totally subjective opinion that I am “afflicted with the sliding imprecision of postmodern deconstructed thought and communication. It makes perfect sense that you’d have a tough time precisely communicating imprecise thought?”

We’d have to agree on definitions for the following terms before that demand could even be meaningfully addressed in a conversation between you and I:

Objective
biblical
proof
subjective
opinion
precise
communication

That’s the point. We are exercising two divergent and incompatible methods of thinking and communicating and hence have ultimately differing definitions of each of the terms in that list. (and MANY more) One or both are wrong, but both cannot be right. You’d have to be a postmodernist to think both can be right. What’s funny is that the definition of postmodernism itself actually doesn’t make any difference. It could be called anything. What matters is how it works. Or doesn’t work I should say.

You have my word, in front of all these people, that I am not viewing you as an enemy to be vanquished and embarrassed.

That said, what if I could demonstrate that you are functioning on the exact same intellectual foundation as Violet and her crew? And that that accounts for your claim to being not only an orthodox (another needed definition) follower of scripture, but a REFORMED one as well, WHILE also claiming that Young is following those same scriptures?

What if I can demonstrate that the same muddled agnostic intellectual underpinnings that comfort them in their unbelief, also comfort you in your broadminded tolerant theological liberalism? What if I can do that? I promise you, in Jesus name I can, but your challenge is like furniture on the 2nd floor of a worldview that we haven’t defined the foundation for yet.

You have never thought any of this through. Which makes you neither a dummy nor a horrible person, it just means you haven’t thought any of this through. You really should. For the sake of His great and holy name and your service under it. Yes, that’s a big claim. Don’t you think it would be interesting to explore?

“What if I can demonstrate that the same muddled agnostic intellectual underpinnings that comfort them in their unbelief, also comfort you in your broadminded tolerant theological liberalism?”

Yet another very subjective opinion having no objective basis outside of its ownself. You are now simply projecting your own perceptions upon me, perceptions which are actually somewhat distorted. I so rarely engage in “muddled agnostic underpinnings,” as to be somewhat comical. My alleged “broadminded theological liberalism,” also lacks a certain broadmindedness and liberalism.

I wasn’t snickering. Would you like me to cite the various pieces of scripture that indicate precisely that? A religious spirit thought itself worthy to persecute Christ Himself for what they perceived to be heresy.

“I wasn’t snickering. Would you like me to cite the various pieces of scripture that indicate precisely that? A religious spirit thought itself worthy to persecute Christ Himself for what they perceived to be heresy.”

Thee you go again.

I am well aware of every passage and principle Gabrielle.

Their mere existence does not necessitate their meaning what you want them to.

What you are proposing would be like somebody declaring a certain person the antichrist, and then when biblical support was demanded, quoting passages that teach there is an antichrist.

The fact there is or will be AN antichrist says nothing about a particular contemporary figure being him.

Those principles and passages have nothing to do with me and I’ll prove it if you persist in attempting to establish that they do.

Well good tirib. But old Scarlett had her moments in the mansion. Many people would recognize the inference immediately.

With that in view, maybe you havn’t thought of other things as well? Like the big picture. Like ‘in my Father’s house are many mansions………..’ Like the ministry of the left foot little toe, or the ministry of the right hand second knuckle. just sayin.

Like the big picture of my observation with all the comments regarding this post and the host. just sayin.

Gabrielle quotes me as saying: “What if I can demonstrate that the same muddled agnostic intellectual underpinnings that comfort them in their unbelief, also comfort you in your broadminded tolerant theological liberalism?”

..and then responds with:

Yet another very subjective opinion having no objective basis outside of its ownself. You are now simply projecting your own perceptions upon me, perceptions which are actually somewhat distorted. I so rarely engage in “muddled agnostic underpinnings,” as to be somewhat comical. My alleged “broadminded theological liberalism,” also lacks a certain broadmindedness and liberalism.

As I say. You haven’t thought any of this through. Does this mean you don’t want to talk about it?

👏👏👏 I’m in total agreement- when you discipline a child as a loving parent, you’re doing it to help the child grow, learn, and develop empathy for others. At 8 years old, you may think Dad is a big meanie, but at 40, you’ll be thankful for that guidance 😀

And there we have it boy s n girls. What YOU wold do and why, MUST be the same for God. And a like from Gabrielle.

God created in man’s image in crystal clear living color.

Followed by a statement that, while essentially true, is entirely irrelevant to the present discussion. I quoted Hebrews 12 myself. v. 11 – All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

Nobody is disputing that discipline hurts now and is seen as good later.

What’s relevant here is that we DO not, indeed CANNOT discipline our children because they have offended US and to preserve our own glory.

“so that they shall you we, their parents, are their lords” “for the sake our own great and holy name”

Godly human parental discipline is in answer to the defiance of godly authority delegated to the parents by God whose great and holy name is invested in the soundness of their parenting.

God CAN and in fact does discipline His people for the sake of “HIS OWN GREAT AND HOLY NAME.” As I have inescapably demonstrated in the piece that Gabrielle herself here cites.

You man worshipers better begin to understand that you are not God. God doesn’t care what you would do and neither does anybody who knows His holy word. At the very least Gabrielle you need to stop the comical charade that you have anything even accidentally in common with the reformed faith. You’re a neo-emergent liberal. You need to face that. Do it today. Maybe it will disturb you into reevaluating your unbiblical worldview.

“What’s relevant here is that we DO not, indeed CANNOT discipline our children because they have offended US and to preserve our own glory.”

Fascinating. I would say, we certainly can, and God certainly can too, HOWEVER, a good and Holy Father does not wallow in the kind of pride that would lead one to conclude our children exist simply to stroke our own egos, to preserve our own glory. At least, I’ve never perceived my own children as existing for my glory.

God who is perfect, Holy, and just,and also all powerful, is so much stronger than I am, so the idea that I could somehow offend Him or taint His glory, actually feels somewhat disrespectful to me. I mean, I could be His totally dysfunctional, defiant daughter and that would in no way offend Him or threaten His glory, being as His glory is already well established and not dependent on my compliance at all.

Actually I think if I were really a man follower, a so called neo-emergent liberal, with an alleged unbiblical world view, I would promptly climb onto the back of your train,and ride it right into the abyss with you.

Alas I am not a man-follower and you are simply a man, therefore I cannot follow you where you are going, because quite frankly where you are going, is not where my Father is leading me.

So yes, God’s power is absolute, He could well discipline us for offending Him or tainting His honor in some way, that is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is the idea that Tiribulus actually believes his self to be worthy to sit in judgment of his own sister, to condemn her as a heretic, and to claim I have an unbiblical world view.

Do you trust your own Father to handle me? Do you think I am so big and bad, He fears me in some way and needs your help?

GABRIELLE the God of the bible will never lead His children against… well… the bible.

That’s why the gave it to us. So we’d be able to know the difference with settled certainty. Did you pay even the slightest bit of attention to my PIECE that you yourself cited here, wherein I quoted God Himself numerous times denouncing HIS OWN people for profaning His name?

Do you not understand that when you, with Young, promote the misrepresentation and denigration of God, the same way the Jews did, that you are preaching the profaning of His name and reputation just like them? You don’t understand that do you? Old Testament warnings are cited in the New Testament btw.
==============================
I would never want ANYbody to follow ME. I am pointing to the scriptures and an innumerable multitude of giants of the faith who went before me. If I didn’t like you so much, I would really be getting tired of repeating myself.

This is not about YOU and ME. It’s about what the historic biblical gospel is and is not. Observe the Westminster Confession of 1646 again. THIS is reformed see? And was around hundreds of years before me. After explaining how true biblical perseverance works in sections I and II, the assembly left us the following, 360 years ago in section III of chapter XVII:

CHAPTER XVII.
Of The Perseverance of the Saints.
…………………………….
sect. III. Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalancy of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their perseverance, fall into grievous sins; ad for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and prevalancy others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

Do you know how those 120 men came to that conclusion? By studying the SCRIPTURES. Not art and culture and stories and books by apostates like Young. They took dozens of decades of cumulative prayer and scolarly bible study to Westminster and spent 4 years together hammering out that glorious (though non-directly inspired) confession. Sometimes taking days to settle a single sentence in order to ensure that their precision and accuracy be as worthy of the God of those scriptures as they were capable.

THESE are my friends and witnesses, among an army of others spanning centuries, in the tradition we both claim. Take a look around this blog and compere them with your friends and witnesses. I humbly challenge you to try that.

Take a couple hours and start with the Westminster Confession and larger Catechism. Prayerfully read through those. THAT is what “reformed” means my dear. I challenge you to read those two standards through, when/if you decide to, before coming back here. When you do come back and start reading the comments from some your friends, it will be like reading a cereal box by comparison.

NOT NOT NOT because they are stupid, but because they are happy in their shallow, post modern biblical ignorance and uncertainty. If God’s word and will ain’t all that clear, then they don’t have to be either. They then get to affirm or deny all kinds of views they personally like or don’t, BECAUSE, they do or don’t like them. My most longing fervent prayer is that that is not also ultimately true of you. You may be just the one to help them.

I know. ARROGANT, right? Like I said already. That’s the canned blanket postmodern charge against anybody with actual biblical conviction.

No. Just kind of sad and alone and walled off by pride, left with no one to hang out with but the dead reformers. One thing I do know about dead people, they never give offense,they never require your vulnerability,and they never tell you you’re totally full of coconut candy.

I don’t know exactly when the world changed. I must have blinked. Or perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps evil was always present to this extent in other forms, and I was not jaded — or enlightened — enough to see it.